Template talk:TV Series
Format I actually like it better at the top and going across the entire screen, the way the German pages do. Any thoughts? Does anyone even care? :) --Schrei 21:13, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Which pages would this be used on? Zsingaya ''Talk'' 21:27, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::It's on all of the TV series, but the template's at the bottom right now. See how the German ones do it for what I'm talking about. --Schrei 21:33, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I agree, its much more useful at the top of the page, because otherwise you've got to scroll right to the bottom of the page to even realise its there. Also, it does look better right across the page as well, in my opinion. Zsingaya ''Talk'' 21:36, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) Urrm... something like this: Zsingaya ''Talk'' 21:48, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I actually like it at the bottom better, that's where we keep most templates of this type. Plus, if your going to a series article, it seems to me you'd look at the page before going on to another series. - AJHalliwell 21:53, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I might agree if we did it like the Wikipedia pages, but our pages have a long list of episodes. How many people will actually scroll down far enough to find the nav template? I still think the German style zsingaya emulated above is best. --Schrei 04:10, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) **The nitpick I have about it at the top is that it sort of 'interupts' the article. By going to a TV Series article, you are basically automatically prompted with the selection of other series, then you have to look down below it to get to the initial summary. Perhaps there can be some compromise. Instead of the top or bottom, how about we place it before the list of episodes? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 14:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) From MA:PFD ;Template:TV Series : Created as a suggestion, but never used. Probably voted down as well? -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Not used? What a shame, MA/de uses this and similar ones on all season pages: keep -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 12:13, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' - The discussion has been archived and the consensus was to use it. --Memory 20:32, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' and use. :P --From Andoria with Love 21:12, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) *Has been put to use since its listing here, so I agree with keeping. -- Cid Highwind 22:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I think everyone pretty much agrees that it should be kept.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) ---- Template removed from pages This template was just removed from all series pages and replaced with a browser table (example:TOS). I think it makes more sense to keep this template instead, because it allows users to jump from one to any other series - and would like these changes to be reverted. Any opinions? -- Cid Highwind 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :My two cents only, but I do agree with you that this template is superior to the browser table and would support restoring this template's use (in a fairly horizontal design for use at the bottom of pages) over any kind of Previous Series/Next Series browser table. --TommyRaiko 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ::Agreed, the template should be returned to the articles and the template itself be reverted to its previous format. --From Andoria with Love 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ::Okay then, reverting. --From Andoria with Love 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Prefer separating Short Treks So, as it stands now, we have this template divided into two sections: the "regular" stuff and the "companion" stuff. Currently, regular consists of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DIS, the upcoming untitled Picard show, the upcoming LD, the upcoming untitled animated show, and the upcoming untitled Section 31 show. I have no problems with this. Meanwhile, the companion series currently consists of AT, ST, and TRR. The problem is that ST is not really anything like AT and TRR. Yes, it does compliment Discovery, but in a very different way. If someone wanted to know what Star Trek shows existed, I would have no problem excluding AT and TRR from the list I would give them, but I wouldn't dare exclude ST, since it is relevant to Discovery. I propose one of two things: Either we re-classify ST to be a regular series just like the others (and probably rename the categories to "Star Trek universe" and "Real world"), or we divide this list into three categories instead of two. The first can be "Traditional series" (and consist of everything not mentioned in the other categories), the second can be "Complimentary series" (and consist of ST), and the third can be "Production series" (and consist of AT and TRR). I don't really have a preference of which of these two reclassifications we do, but as it stands now grouping Short Treks in with After Trek and The Ready Room just feels wrong. -- 04:47, February 10, 2019 (UTC) :This template isn't in-universe nor is it here to say what is. This also isn't the place to be suggesting broad changes to the structure of the category system. That said, the biggest issue with you purposale is that ST is very much not complimentary, they expect you pay for it, as I "feel" we all will be for years to come. :I would suggest waiting until we know more about the other upcomming series before forcing classifcations we don't know will apply. The current breakdown may not "feel" right to you, but it "feels" right to others, and since "feelings" are poor arguments, I'm not seeing a reason to say a show that clearly can't stand alone isn't a show that clearly can't stand alone. - 00:54, February 11, 2019 (UTC) ::I believe ST has always been described as a companion series by TPTB. Could be wrong, but.. 31dot (talk) 01:43, February 11, 2019 (UTC)